Citation network
Livadas Vs. Bradshaw
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 13, 1994
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 107 (1994) October Term, 1993 Syllabus Livadas V. BradshawSearch
-
s policy is pre-empted by federal law. Pp. 116-132. (a) This case is fundamentally no different from Nash v. FloridaSearch
-
is consulted for damage computation is no reason to extinguish the state-law claim. See, e. g., Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. LueckSearch
-
U. S. 202 , and Lingle v. NorgeSearch
-
and employers to bargain for what they would otherwise be entitled to under state law. Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. CoyneSearch
-
to foreclose actions like Livadas's, and there is no cause for special caution here. See Golden State Transit Corp. v. LosSearch
-
Cf. Perry v. ThomasSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to be a reference to a 1975 decision of the California Court of Appeal, Plumbing, Heating and Piping Employers Council v. HowardSearch
-
Lingle v. NorgeSearch
-
see Golden State Transit Corp. v. LosSearch
-
right, see, e. g., Golden State Transit Corp. v. LosSearch
-
from conduct protected by federal labor law poses special dangers of interference with congressional purpose. In Nash v. FloridaSearch
-
interference with the operation of the Act, much as does a penalty on those who participate in the process. Cf. Hill v. FloridaSearch
-
line of labor pre-emption cases, see Machinists v. WisconsinSearch
-
rights). Neither party here argues for application of the rule of San Diego Building Trades Council v. GarmonSearch
-
of the Act. 118 tion. Cf. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. MassachusettsSearch
-
et seq. Thus, straightforward NLRA pre-emption analysis has been held inappropriate. See New York Telephone Co. v. NewSearch
-
see also id., at 549 (BLACKMUN, J., concurring in judgment). Noting that Nash v. FloridaSearch
-
the Act sometimes demands a more scrupulous evenhandedness from the States. See generally Wisconsin Dept. of Industry v. GouldSearch
-
compare Golden State I, 475 U. S. 608 (1986), with NLRB v. ServetteSearch
-
but cf. Building & Constr. Trades Council v. AssociatedSearch
-
exception to the valid warrant requirement recognized in United States v. LeonSearch
-
analysis, rather, turns on the actual content of respondent's policy and its real effect on federal rights. See Nash v. FloridaSearch
-
see, 13 See also Rum Creek Coal Sales, Inc. v. CapertonSearch
-
to seek redress in a nonfederal forum determine the existence of a federal right, see ibid. See, e. g., Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
to deciding whether an official will be entitled to immunity from individual damage liability, see, e. g., Davis v. SchererSearch
-
Process Clauses for what the Supremacy Clause requires. The power to tax is no less the power to destroy, McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
of the federal law. Brown v. HotelSearch
-
and 203 claims. 121 v. WhiteSearch
-
see also New York Telephone Co. v. NewSearch
-
of collective-bargaining disputes between parties who have provided for arbitration. See, e. g., AllisChalmers Corp. v. LueckSearch
-
of the vagaries of state law and lingering hostility toward extrajudicial dispute resolution, see Tex tile Workers v. LincolnSearch
-
see also Steelworkers v. WarriorSearch
-
And in Teamsters v. LucasSearch
-
has been accorded unusual pre-emptive power. In Avco Corp. v. MachinistsSearch
-
see Republic Steel Corp. v. MaddoxSearch
-
emphasis deleted). In Lueck and in Lingle v. NorgeSearch
-
U. S., at 411-412, and because the scope of the arbitral promise is not itself unlimited, see Steelworkers v. WarriorSearch
-
while contract-interpretation disputes must be resolved in the bargained-for arbitral realm, see Republic Steel Corp. v. MaddoxSearch
-
the terms of collective-bargaining agreements in resolving non-pre-empted claims, see Charles Dowd Box Co. v. CourtneySearch
-
NLRB v. C &Search
-
the employer (perhaps because the employee or his union has negotiated away the state-law right), cf. Caterpillar Inc. v. WilliamsSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial